Should we judge people by the times they lived in?

We shouldnt judge people. Theres no ifs or buts, the bible is clear that if we judge others we will be judged.

The Barbarian said:

I'd say advocating white supremacy is racism. How about you?

Click to expand...

Voicing support for an ideology neither deprives others of their rights nor structurally disadvantages them. So no, I do not think we should call it racism.

The Barbarian said:

I'd say putting an education requirement for blacks to have rights, without the same requirement for whites, is racism. How about you?

Click to expand...

Such a policy would clearly be racist. But John Wayne was not in a position to create or implement any such policies.

The Barbarian said:

Depends on what the prejudice is for. If it's prejudice against people because of race, yes, that's racism

Click to expand...

No. That's the point of my post. I think that it matters not only what the prejudice is for, but how the prejudice is manifested such that it produces actual real world effects. Prejudice without action is like faith without works.

The Barbarian said:

I suppose how "practical" it is, depends on whether or not you're the target.

Click to expand...

No. How "practical" it is to address racism is not fundamentally about who the target is but in what manner are they being targeted. Someone can say and think whatever they want--up to the point where they begin infringing on someone else's rights. We can't police people's thoughts. But we can expect people to live by society's laws and customs.

The Barbarian said:

Depends on whether or not you're the one being so attacked.

Click to expand...

I've been the target of offensive words before. You know what I did? I walked away.

The Barbarian said:

No, those are crimes. Racism is a mindset, the notion that a person's race means something about his worth as a person.

Click to expand...

My definition of racism is a critique of the definition you just presented.

If racism is a mindset, there is very little point trying to counter it. I can think people with orange skin are terrible, and I could even say it out loud, but my thoughts and words aren't preventing the orange skinned person from getting a job or buying a house. If I don't infringe on anyone's rights, then how am I a threat worth devoting resources to? How can we even know what someone actually believes? We can't. We judge people based on their actions. We should not waste time turning every person who says something offensive or poorly informed into public enemy #1.

The Barbarian said:

He just advocated whites being over blacks, until some undefined level of education happened, while he had no such standard for whites.

Click to expand...

Again, did he merely voice support for an ideology? Or did he actually institute practices that subordinated blacks under whites? The latter is racism. The former is not.

The Barbarian said:

The people being targeted. And anyone with a sense of decency.

Click to expand...

Decent people should spend their energy trying to actually fix things, not on moral grandstanding and trying to police people's thoughts.

The Barbarian said:

LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne’s Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy
“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so,” Wayne said. “But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”
LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne's Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy

From today's perspective, his words are truly disgusting. But we probably should remember, that in those years, there were men in Congress who were white nationalists, and in some states, the laws actually supported that despicable ideology.

Racism remains a serious problem in America. But this is a measure of how far we've come in the past 50 years. It's a good thing to have the discussion; and I'm receptive to his son's comment that we should consider how he treated people, in addition to the disgraceful statement he made.

Full Disclosure: I grew up in an environment with lots of racist people. My father often spoke of black people in disrespectful ways. But I noticed that when he was dealing with them, he was never disrespectful to them. And then I discovered something much later.

When a black guy he knew was down on his luck, Dad helped him buy a car that he needed for work. And in those days, Dad didn't have a lot of money himself. He never told anyone but the family he helped remembered. So there's that. I think that, if Wayne was like my Dad, then a discussion of that apparent contradiction is worthwhile, but I'd give him a pass as far as his name on the airport is concerned.

Click to expand...

I heard he was a 33rd degree freemason. Also, that at that level, they are a very bad lot, indeed - however, innocent they may at the lower levels.

Silverback said:

{snip}Hard work, sacrifice, self reliance, and making good choices. That's the biblical norm.

Click to expand...

How does your interpretation of the Bible referring to what you believe is the biblical norm fits in with the scriptures that commission Christians to take care of the poor, the needy, widows and orphans?

15 Verses about Taking Care Of Widows

100 Bible Verses about Take Care Of The Poor

27 Bible Verses about Taking Care Of Orphans

What does the Bible say about giving to the poor?

What does the Bible say about orphans and widows?

James 1:27: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (emphasized)

And one more thing, I'm also curious to know how your interpretation of the biblical norm you described fits in with Jesus' Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 too.

The sheep on His right: “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (verse 40)

The goats on His left: “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ (verse 45)

Shiloh Raven said:

How does your interpretation of the Bible referring to what you believe is the biblical norm fits in with the scriptures that commission Christians to take care of the poor, the needy, widows and orphans?

15 Verses about Taking Care Of Widows

100 Bible Verses about Take Care Of The Poor

27 Bible Verses about Taking Care Of Orphans

What does the Bible say about giving to the poor?

What does the Bible say about orphans and widows?

James 1:27: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (emphasized)

And one more thing, I'm curious to know how your interpretation of the biblical norm you described fits in with Jesus' Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 too.

The sheep on His right: “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (verse 40)

The goats on His left: “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ (verse 45)

Click to expand...

Looking after them, is different than a free ride, remember what St. Paul said "to work with your own hands" and "if they will not work, nor shall they eat" helping people in need, taking care of the needy is great, we do that as a society. But there is a difference in helping people, and in taking from one to give to others. And if you notice, it's the church, and families aiding people, not the Government. Additionally, look at the criteria St. Paul issued for helping widow's, it's more stringent than what is in place today.

The Barbarian said:

Wayne was a republican, and acted like one. He did a Donald Trump when he was drafted in WWII, but became a patriot later when it was personally safe to be so.

This isn't about his character. It's about whether or not we should judge him from a time when immorality of that sort was condoned by many people.

Click to expand...

Who among us has never said something or did something or believed something that wouldn't look good on the front page of today's newspaper?

Abraham Lincoln was far more racist than John Wayne. He too was a product of the culture into which he was born, but if we are going to condemn everybody for past sins and refuse to honor the blessings that they were in spite of their sin, who is worthy to be honored?

Shall we tear down the Lincoln Memorial? Take his likeness off the penny? Change the name of all the towns, etc. that were named after him?

This whole business of hunting up past sins to discredit people both living and dead has become increasingly destructive to the point that it has become evil.

The Barbarian said:

LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne’s Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy
“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so,” Wayne said. “But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”
LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne's Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy

From today's perspective, his words are truly disgusting. But we probably should remember, that in those years, there were men in Congress who were white nationalists, and in some states, the laws actually supported that despicable ideology.

Racism remains a serious problem in America. But this is a measure of how far we've come in the past 50 years. It's a good thing to have the discussion; and I'm receptive to his son's comment that we should consider how he treated people, in addition to the disgraceful statement he made.

Full Disclosure: I grew up in an environment with lots of racist people. My father often spoke of black people in disrespectful ways. But I noticed that when he was dealing with them, he was never disrespectful to them. And then I discovered something much later.

When a black guy he knew was down on his luck, Dad helped him buy a car that he needed for work. And in those days, Dad didn't have a lot of money himself. He never told anyone but the family he helped remembered. So there's that. I think that, if Wayne was like my Dad, then a discussion of that apparent contradiction is worthwhile, but I'd give him a pass as far as his name on the airport is concerned.

Click to expand...

Someone told me once that if history didn't play out the way it did against blacks after the emancipation, and how the culture treated them, none of the problems we are facing today would have existed. He went on to say that we are now feeling the consequences of our ancestor's sins, and God is reminding us that he did not forget it, he did not turn a blind eye to wait until judgment day. I came to agree with his conclusion, that most of the problems among the "irresponsible" black community, frankly, is from how people treated them, but that this doesn't negate the responsibility on their part to have made something out of it instead of giving up. It is sad that the civil rights movement happened during the 60's, instead of earlier, it was at the wrong time to include and integrate blacks more into certain realms of society, it should have happened earlier than that. Liberalism and the hippy movement I believe, tangling itself with that time, also lead to the problems some of those communities now face. But for God, he had a purpose in mind and it was at the right time to bring about something good that we may not currently see.

The Barbarian said:

Wayne was a republican, and acted like one. He did a Donald Trump when he was drafted in WWII, but became a patriot later when it was personally safe to be so.

This isn't about his character. It's about whether or not we should judge him from a time when immorality of that sort was condoned by many people.

Click to expand...

We can judge them by the best of them in their time.

For instance, there were Christian Abolitionists preaching against slavery from the very first time blacks were brought to America. There were Abolitionists involved in the debates over the formation of the new United States. So, yes, they can be judged on the basis that the truth was given to them and they suppressed the truth.

So given that the truth was available to him, was in his face, was there for him to see, then, yes, he can be judged on that basis.

Kenny'sID said:

I'm not judging him at all. It was the way it was back then, people were raised that way, and some didn't know better until they were shown/taught better. If he were still around, I can pretty much grantee he'd not feel that way or say such things today.

Click to expand...

And yet, at the same time, Marlon Brando, James Garner, and Charleton Heston marched with Martin Luther King on Washington. They stood with Sidney Poitier and Harry Belefonte to desegregate movie theaters. Charleton Heston waged a one-man war to desegregate Hollywood's behind-the-camera unions. If there hadn't been a Charleton Heston, there might not have been a Spike Lee.

At the same time.

Where was John Wayne that he missed all that?

The Barbarian said:

Racists often cited the Yerkes study back during WWI. It "showed" that blacks were genetically inferior to whites in intelligence. What they didn't realize that the data also "showed" that northern blacks were genetically superior to southern whites. Oops.



No, racism is attributing different characteristics to people on account of race. Which is wildly illogical, since the Human Genome Study has shown that there are no biological human races. They are merely cultural constructs, which is why the number of "races" varies, depending on where you are. There is more genetic variation within any "race" you might define, than there is between them.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).
How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

For example, there is no racist allele found in uneducated white people. It's just a culturally-determined behavior, not found in all uneducated whites.
https://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/62049.pdf



If you're a realist, you accept that there are no biological human races.



If you have to make up things and insist that I said them, that's probably a sign that you already know the truth, even if you don't want to accept it.



Racists in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Soviet Union, etc. weren't "barbaric"; barbarians don't typically kill millions of people for abstract racist ideas, or religious differences. That's what civilizations do.

Click to expand...

Sorry it wasn't you but Ignatius the Kiwi who made the comment about "old colonialism". Forgive me

As for being a realist- you throw a few stats at me, one of which is from a University now notorious for being a liberal echo chamber. One can simply look at Races and their characteristics and see the differences through time. One can even through DNA track how much Neanderthal and homosapien DNA is in a person. Each race has evolved through natural selection via certain environments, to adapt to certain conditions and strengths. These are basic scientific concepts that transverse any Harvard "study".

I'm not trying to state that Whites are intellectually superior to everyone as Asians and Jews would win that one. I am simply stating there are differences.

The Barbarian said:

Racists often cited the Yerkes study back during WWI. It "showed" that blacks were genetically inferior to whites in intelligence. What they didn't realize that the data also "showed" that northern blacks were genetically superior to southern whites. Oops.



No, racism is attributing different characteristics to people on account of race. Which is wildly illogical, since the Human Genome Study has shown that there are no biological human races. They are merely cultural constructs, which is why the number of "races" varies, depending on where you are. There is more genetic variation within any "race" you might define, than there is between them.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).
How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

For example, there is no racist allele found in uneducated white people. It's just a culturally-determined behavior, not found in all uneducated whites.
https://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/62049.pdf



If you're a realist, you accept that there are no biological human races.



If you have to make up things and insist that I said them, that's probably a sign that you already know the truth, even if you don't want to accept it.



Racists in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Soviet Union, etc. weren't "barbaric"; barbarians don't typically kill millions of people for abstract racist ideas, or religious differences. That's what civilizations do.

Click to expand...

Interesting as well as you mention the Soviet Union. You do realize communist is based on a narrative of Racial equality and left wing ideology correct? Complete equality among everyone? There were no racial narratives in the USSR except perhaps pro Zionist ones.

Also I think you will find that uneducated whites generally live in low income country locations with few Jobs and poor schools. I live in a large city right next to a ghetto. No matter how much the city puts into the education system, and how many jobs are available, it doesn't change anything. Don't even get me started on my Job and the racial tensions in the workplace.

The Barbarian said:

Yes, even during the worst of slavery and Jim Crow, there were thinking people who saw the moral cesspool that is racism. But whether we like it or not, we are affected in our thinking by the times we live in, and John Wayne was not a notably deep thinker.

I'd be willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on this, especially, if he treated black people with respect in his daily life. I don't know one way or the other, but in the absence of evidence, I'm not going to assume he's guilty.

Click to expand...

Was Marlon Brando a "notably deep thinker?" Was Charleton Heston? Yet they both figured it out.

If we give Wayne the benefit of the doubt, why not George Wallace and Bull Connor? Why not the crowd that was waiting for the Freedom Riders in Birmingham?

The Barbarian said:

Odd then, that Stalin and communists oppressed Jews and other ethnic minorities.
Racism in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia



If they were ethnic Russians. Some citizens were more equal than others.



Tell that to the Crimean Tatars, who were ethnically-cleansed from their homeland by communists.



Yep. Racists are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. But since intelligence is mostly environment, not genetic, it's not surprising that they'd be in impoverished environments.



And yet, when such people move out of that environment, their children do better. That alone should make you reconsider your racial ideas.

[quote[Don't even get me started on my Job and the racial tensions in the workplace.

Click to expand...

When someone is a racist, it's often very hard for him to hide it.[/QUOTE]

Interesting about the Jews under Stalin. I was actually unaware of that. I'll have to check that for accuracy but you have piqued my interest. I will say however that most of those cleansed from the USSR were done so because they were more resistant to the new regime. Stalin was a thug, and no communist.

I'm curious though as I've read in multiple sources related to operation keelhaul (when the allies deported 2 million Christians and Russian refugees to be hanged by the soviets) that the USSR had laws against antisemitism during WWII the penalty being death. I would have to look into which source is more legitimate.

My question to you is this. In Africa- where the environment is entirely of the African's making, why is it they have not achieved a civilization level anywhere close to European standards over the last 2000 years? And I'm not talking about North Africa but Sub-Saharan.

Trust me I'm more open minded then you will think. I am willing to change my opinion if I find one actually more reasonable, and it was not long ago I help opinions such as yours.

☦Marius☦ said:

My question to you is this. In Africa- where the environment is entirely of the African's making, why is it they have not achieved a civilization level anywhere close to European standards over the last 2000 years? And I'm not talking about North Africa but Sub-Saharan.

Click to expand...

Which part of Africa is "entirely of the African's making?"

The Barbarian said:

LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne’s Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy
“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so,” Wayne said. “But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”
LA Times Columnist: Remove John Wayne's Name from Airport over 48-Year-Old Comments About White Supremacy

From today's perspective, his words are truly disgusting. But we probably should remember, that in those years, there were men in Congress who were white nationalists, and in some states, the laws actually supported that despicable ideology.

Racism remains a serious problem in America. But this is a measure of how far we've come in the past 50 years. It's a good thing to have the discussion; and I'm receptive to his son's comment that we should consider how he treated people, in addition to the disgraceful statement he made.

Full Disclosure: I grew up in an environment with lots of racist people. My father often spoke of black people in disrespectful ways. But I noticed that when he was dealing with them, he was never disrespectful to them. And then I discovered something much later.

When a black guy he knew was down on his luck, Dad helped him buy a car that he needed for work. And in those days, Dad didn't have a lot of money himself. He never told anyone but the family he helped remembered. So there's that. I think that, if Wayne was like my Dad, then a discussion of that apparent contradiction is worthwhile, but I'd give him a pass as far as his name on the airport is concerned.

Click to expand...

The way I see it is he’s dead and has already been judged. Whether he’s in heaven or hell I doubt he’d care about his name in an airport.

☦Marius☦ said:

Christ didn't make money or pay taxes as far as I know, so your point is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Au contraire.

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

“Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”

“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matthew 17